About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
know, barack obama is no more responsible for what happened in benghazi than george w. bush was for what happened on september 11th, 2001 or ronald reagan when the marines got blown up in beirut. these are terrible tragedies and what we have to do is come together as a people to find out what happened and to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. and that to me is the real purpose of secretary clinton testifying because we really want to make sure that this doesn't happen again. this should not be used for political gotchas but americans need to band together at times of national tragedy. we lost our ambassador and other americans and we want to make sure as the secretary has said we need to move forward to take steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. she's agreed to accept this plan, these points, 29 points, this was a high-powered thing, wasn't any kind of cover-up or washed over. this is very distinguished, mr. pickering and adds miral mullen had good recommendations and they should be implemented as soon as possible so there are no future benghazis. >
to be asked yesterday. i'm not sure we got really to the core. but i will say, carl, if you think george w. bush didn't have calls for his impeachment, we need to get you on google a little more often. >> not in the congress. a few. >> before we get to women in combat, also, no matter what, rand paul was bringing up a point. you may not have liked the way he brought it up, but if an ambassador in a hot zone cannot communicate with the secretary of state on the issue of security, there's something to be looked at. that's a big problem. >> there's a legitimate congressional investigation here. all i'm saying is that the notion that we have to put everything into a wildly partisan and ideological context instead of real fact finding is a failure of our politics. and this is one more failure of our politics instead of a reasoned investigation. >> i agree with carl. >> it's time to end the political theater and get to some really important fact finding. >> but as congresswoman harman said, it is, in fact, theater. do you remember when the democrats made condoleezza rice read the title on the me
on it immediately. i supported ronald reagan when he sent troops into grenada. i supported george h.w. bush when he sent troops into panama. i supported president clinton, when, against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in kosovo and bosnia and so forth. in this case, i think the president has behaved in that tradition. >> i would argue the constitution doesn't have an exception -- that when you are having tough times, the constitution says that you just go ahead and do it. after vietnam, you were quite critical of the bombing in cambodia because you felt that it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different from libya? >> my attitude has not changed about vietnam itself. >> what about cambodia? >> it was the extension of a war prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that is very different. >> length of time, but similar circumstances. and obama campaign and authorized by congress. it is not this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and to sometimes not go to war. i thoug
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)